Main

September 13, 2006

Outlaw's Dinner

Here's a wonderful followup to the foie gras pizza story...

To recap, the city of Chicago has banned the sale of foie gras in restaraunts, and in response, restaurateurs(*) are slapping down "free" foie gras garnishes all over their dishes as protest.

Well, I just read about someone who took it a step further:

Chef Robert Gadsby of Chicago's 676 Restaurant is offering a seven course "Outlaw's Dinner". Here's a description from a food blog I check now and then:

...Foie Gras wrapped in proscuitto and doused with hot chocolate followed by a host of other banned foods which have fallen foul of the law in various places ranging from absinthe, to wild mushrooms and unpasteurised cheeses. He even incorporated cooking methods such as sous vide which are banned in certain states by the food police.

Brilliant!

For more on this, go to Kitsch'n'Zinc.
,
( * By the way: how much longer is the "correct" spelling, "restaurateur" going to stick around in the face of everyone's natural inclination to spell it "restauranteur"?)

December 8, 2005

Letters, Lincoln, Jefferson, Parties, and Purple Fingers

Bill Bennett has for a little while, now, been intricately involved in a campaign to show solidarity with democracy-seeking citizens of Iraq during their upcoming election. The idea is to cover America with purple-dyed index fingers, starting this Monday.

I like the idea, and will probably be participating myself.

As part of the campaign, he has penned a letter to retailers with suggestions for supporting the campaign. Go read the letter. In it, Mr. Bennett quotes President Abraham Lincoln. The quote was an intriguing one, so I hunted down the source. The part Mr. Bennett quoted is toward the end, regarding the abstract truth implanted in the Declaration of Independence. The whole letter is worth reading, though, so in case you haven't seen it before, here it is in its entirety:

Springfield, Ills, April 6, 1859

Messrs. Henry L. Pierce, & others.

Gentlemen

Your kind note inviting me to attend a Festival in Boston, on the 13th. Inst. in honor of the birth-day of Thomas Jefferson, was duly received. My engagements are such that I can not attend.

Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago, two great political parties were first formed in this country, that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them, and Boston the head-quarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

Remembering too, that the Jefferson party were formed upon its supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and then assuming that the so-called democracy of to-day, are the Jefferson, and their opponents, the anti-Jefferson parties, it will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which they were originally supposed to be divided.

The democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar.

I remember once being much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engage in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long, and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat, and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have perfomed the same feat as the two drunken men.

But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.

One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.

And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.

One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.

We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.

Your obedient Servant
A. Lincoln

Indeed.

(Yes, I just 'indeed'ed President Lincoln. What of it?)

September 28, 2005

GOP Doesn't Hear Me

So I got another letter from my buddy Ken Mehlman. He writes me quite regularly. I've written back a couple of times, but he seems never to actually get what I'm saying to him.

Our relationship is pretty straightforward. I gave the RNC a lot of time and money in 2004, because I believe in President Bush's vision and I believed that a Republican Congress would give me the best chances of seeing this vision carried forward. Ken likes that I gave a lot of time and money, and he thinks it would be great if I would give even more money this year. Here's an excerpt from the beginning of the latest of his missives:

On November 2, 2004, President Bush and our Republican candidates scored a sweeping and historic victory. ...There can be no doubt: Americans have spoken ... and their trust and confidence in President Bush is crystal clear. ...But despite these tremendous accomplishments—the fight for America's future is far from over. In fact, the real battle is just beginning ...

Now here's my problem: I pay for RESULTS. As I see it, I payed, but I got no results. What's the point (I occasionally ask Ken in my unanswered letters) in a Republican majority if that majority includes RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like my own Senator Arlen Specter? What's the point in having a Republican majority if Republicans don't act like they have a majority.

I payed and I campaigned, and all I see from "my" party is a fetid pile of namby-pamby good-old-boy network political cowardice. All Ken's talk of "battles" and "fights" is insulting. The results of the GOP's mishandling of Presidential appointments and nominees looks indistintuishable from what we would have got from a Democratic majority.

I pay for results. Until I see results, I'm not paying another penny. I'm directly supporting Senator Rick Santorum's reelection campaign, because he has the integrity to take tough stands on issues he believes in that I think are important. The rest of the party can hang.

June 5, 2005

Friedman and the Third Rail

Want a nice, compact piece on the history of the political "third rail", all in the context of Milton Friedman's connection to the Social Security debate?

Read Carolyn Lochhead's interview of Friedman in "Friedman's 'heresy' hits mainstream", published in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

May 20, 2005

Bring on the Nuclear Option

Like more and more Americans, I'm getting tired of the obstructionism of the Democrats in the Senate, and find I now welcome a showdown over judicial nominees. The proposal recently sent by Senator Frist would guarantee the President's nominees a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor while allowing all Senators an opportunity to have their say through a guaranteed 100 hours of debate. What are the Democrats afraid of?

Recent arguments in defense of the filibuster are a political mistake. It's like trying to justify gerrymandering or pork barrel compromises. The filibuster only serves career politicians in the Senate.

The job of the Senate is to serve our nation and represent the people. Unless the full Senate gets a vote, the will of the people is being ignored. We elected our Senators and our President. If our Senators are not permitted to vote on our President's judicial nominations, then why did we have an election in the first place?

I'd love to hear arguments, for and against, concerning the merits of each of the nominees. But those arguments should happen on the Senate floor, not just in the press. And then our Senators should be allowed to vote.

May 17, 2005

Pennsylvania Primary News

GrassrootsPA.com has an open comments section for tracking today's voting "action".

Today, I wrote myself in for something for the first time. I don't even know what it was. I just noticed that there's a post the Dems are putting up a candidate for but that the GOP is not, so I wrote myself in for the Republican nomination. With voter turnout so thin and no actual GOP candidate in sight, I figure it's as close as I'll ever get to being on a ballot.


May 11, 2005

Goldberg on Conservatism: It's In the Contradictions

I feel a strong affinity for Jonah Goldberg. We're of the same generation, our politics are similar, our tastes in humor are alike, and he seems addicted to overintellectualized explanations of what conservatism is and isn't. Plus he can often do it with the assistance of a few good booger jokes and Simpsons references.

Defining conservatism tends to get my attention, because (a) it's so often misdefined by people who aren't (or think they aren't) conservatives, (b) it helps me re-examine my own beliefs and practices as a citizen and as a New Christian, and (c) it inevitably draws a connecting thread through policy, politics, ideology and philosophy—an important activity that, frankly, the world needs more of.

All this is really a roundabout way of getting to my point: Jonah's filed another chapter in this discussion. Go read this latest installment from Jonah Goldberg’s G-File on National Review Online.

May 9, 2005

Why I'm Against the Party of McCain and Specter

I receive a lot of email and snail mail from the RNC as a result of contributions I made during President Bush's reelection campaign. They want a lot of more money. I'm particularly unhappy with the Pennsylvania Republican Party, and more and more am generally unhappy with how the national organization is working.

I finally responded to the latest request for donations—this one asking for a few thousand in order to renew my "sustaining member" status. Here is the letter in its entirety, sent four days ago:

Mr. Mehlman,

I have received numerous invitations--from yourself, from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, and from others--to renew my financial support of the Republican Party. I am torn over whether or not my financial contributions are worth making.

I support the Republican platform and in particular support President Bush as the best choice for dealing with the two most important issues facing the nation today: the War on Terroism, and the defense of marriage.

However, I am deeply dismayed to see the Republican party acting like it is still the minority party in Washington when it comes to domestic legislation and executive appointments. In particular, if a Republican majority is unable to get the President's UN and upper Court appointments confirmed, I am not certain what the point of having Republicans in office is. This is particularly true when GOP funds support campaigns for politicians like John McCain and, in my own state, Arlen Specter.

I campaigned for Pat Toomey against Specter in the Pennsylvania Republican Primary last year because of Specter's RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) voting reccord. This was considered disloyal by other Republicans. Nevertheless, when Specter won the Primary, I went out and voted for him, and I contributed both time and money toward the GOP.

Now I wonder why.

Here's my pledge:

When the Republicans make good use of the Senate seats I helped them win in my small way, then I will happily send in my sustaining member contribution to the GOP. "Making good use" means getting Bolton appointed to the U.N. post and substantially all of the President's higher court nominees confirmed.

The GOP is the majority party. It's time it acted like it.

Very Respectfully,
Glenn M. Frazier

I'm considering updating my pledge, after hearing of the cockeyed "deal" being brokered by Ben Nelson and Trent Lott.

Hugh Hewitt and others who said voting against Specter (who is rumored to possibly favor blocking the so-called "nuclear option") despite his decades-long leftward drift was a bad idea because "it's better to have a moderate Republican chair the judiciary committee than no Republican at all"—please find a way to talk me out of this: I'm considering pledging to vote against, actively campaign against, and financially contribute to the defeat of every Republican Senator who agrees to this nonsense.

If I didn't have Rick Santorum as my other Senator here in Pennsylvania, I'd be ready to completely throw in the towel on the entire Republican Party in Pennsylvania. At least Santorum is a standup guy when it comes to the President's nominations. The rest of the party in this state is looking more and more like a totally worthless good-old-boys network more interested in preserving their own little club's standings than in forwarding any sort of conservative agenda.

Getting elected at any cost will not get my support. Doing something for the love of the Senate and of tradition is in no way noble. Our elected officials are supposed to be serving their nation and their constituents, not their colleagues.